Which Statement Is True Regarding the Responsibilities of Reviewers?

The answer

The correct choice is the one stating that reviewers must preserve confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, and deliver an objective, constructive, and professional evaluation. Peer review is a position of trust: an editor hands a reviewer someone else's unpublished work, and the reviewer is expected to protect it and judge it fairly.

Three duties sit at the center of a reviewer's ethical role:

1. Confidentiality. A manuscript (or grant proposal) under review is a privileged document. Reviewers must not share it with others, discuss it publicly, post it, or retain copies beyond what the review requires. They also must not use the privileged information for their own advantage — for example, delaying a competitor's paper or scooping an unpublished finding.
2. Disclosing conflicts of interest. If a reviewer has a financial stake, a close collaboration, a personal relationship, or a competing project with the authors, they must disclose it to the editor and usually recuse themselves. Undisclosed COI corrupts the objectivity peer review exists to provide.
3. Objectivity, constructiveness, and timeliness. Evaluations should rest on the science, not on personal bias toward the authors, their institution, nationality, or viewpoint. Criticism should be specific, evidence-based, and respectful, and reviews should be returned promptly so the process is not stalled.

Why the other options are wrong

Typical distractors in this CITI question fail one of the duties above:

• "A reviewer may use ideas or data from the manuscript in their own work." False. Privileged, unpublished material must not be appropriated. Doing so is a serious breach — a form of misconduct.
• "A reviewer can freely share the manuscript with colleagues or students." False. Any outside consultation must be approved by the editor and kept confidential; you cannot simply circulate the file.
• "Reviewers have no obligation to disclose conflicts of interest." False. Disclosure is mandatory; hidden conflicts are exactly what the rule targets.
• "A reviewer should reject work that competes with their own." False — that is the conflict of interest they must instead disclose and recuse from, not act upon.

The single option that captures the genuine obligations — confidentiality plus COI disclosure plus fair, professional judgment — is the true one.

The bigger picture

Peer review protects the integrity of the scientific record, and it only works because reviewers behave as fiduciaries for both the authors and the field. The reviewer is not a gatekeeper settling scores; they are an anonymous expert whose job is to strengthen good work and catch flawed work while shielding the authors' intellectual property. Handling a conflict correctly means telling the editor and stepping aside, not quietly steering the outcome. Handling confidentiality correctly means treating the manuscript as though it does not exist outside the review. Keep those two instincts and the CITI reviewer-responsibility questions become straightforward.